QB Competition

Originally posted by NinerGM:
Wow then Singletary must SUCK A$$ as a coach even giving Alex Smith a chance to compete. Raye and his coaches are absolute MORONS. I mean really. WTF are they doing?

According to D_Niner, Singletary should just LOOK AT THE FACTS and realize he's not qualified to make the most basic decision a head coach can make about the team - choosing a starting QB. Rather, he's going to allow a scrub like Smith to compete.

................. because that's what you guys are really saying.

You can't like the coach but hate the process by which he's using to determine starters on the team.

So this is what I don't understand about Smith haters - if you're so sure he's a bust, then doesn't this competition make all the offensive coaches idiots? I mean why don't you just really take the next logical step in the argument.

I'll tell you why - because none of you will question Singletary's football knowledge or question the team's decisions. ... because ultimately it's a decision made by the coaches and the staff.

So don't just end the "analysis" of facts there - take it to it's logical conclusion.

Singletary sucks.

Which I know most of you (and I don't) believe for one minute.

Wow... What a way to lie out of your ass. I never posted that Bulls**t... I've actually stated just the opposite, that I like the competition. I just think it would be better to have a starter named and allow the backup to compete and push the starter to get better. It's called an oppinion and a real fan should have one...

Also, I don't care what guy they name as the starter, I just think it would be better for our entire O to have a guy that they can start to jell with. Now if you want to base this decision off of the players History then Hill is the guy. If you want to base it off of perceived potential then its Smith.

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by swim4speed:
We all know that Alex Smith's best season was in 2006 with Norv Turner. That season he threw 16 TD's, but also 16 interceptions. That is not good. With more attempts, he would have thrown over 20 interceptions. His completion % was 58. That is not good. His QB rating was 74, I think. That is mediocre.

His first 3 games of 2007, he played poorly. He still looked very mediocre and in fact looked like he got worse from 2006. They won 2 games DESPITE alex's poor performances.

Statistically speaking he did get worse. I created some trend charts for various QB stats and in all categories that I looked at, Alex started regressing or wearing down over the second 1/2 of 2006. Unfortunately this trend continued into the beginning of 2007 (before the injury).

Statistically speaking, the whole offense got worse.

-9fA

Not true...

Gore's rushing yards per game and yards per attempt shows an improving trend as the 2006 season went along.

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by swim4speed:
We all know that Alex Smith's best season was in 2006 with Norv Turner. That season he threw 16 TD's, but also 16 interceptions. That is not good. With more attempts, he would have thrown over 20 interceptions. His completion % was 58. That is not good. His QB rating was 74, I think. That is mediocre.

His first 3 games of 2007, he played poorly. He still looked very mediocre and in fact looked like he got worse from 2006. They won 2 games DESPITE alex's poor performances.

Statistically speaking he did get worse. I created some trend charts for various QB stats and in all categories that I looked at, Alex started regressing or wearing down over the second 1/2 of 2006. Unfortunately this trend continued into the beginning of 2007 (before the injury).

Statistically speaking, the whole offense got worse.

-9fA

Not true...

Gore's rushing yards per game and yards per attempt shows an improving trend as the 2006 season went along.

I thought we were discussing this downward trend going into early 2007. If so, it's important to remember something. Gore has multiple surgeries (shoulders/ankles) going into 2007 training camp, and then sustained a hand injury in TC. He came into 2007 this way, and between this and Hostler, he struggled, as did the receivers and their 20% drop ratio. I give a fair amount of credit to Alex for helping us get to 2-1 before injury considering these problems. He may not have lit up the stat sheet, but he was a big part of that 2-1 record.

Anyway, to your other post, WHEN do you want a starter named exactly? I applaud your outward willingness to accept whichever QB is named. That said, if a QB must be named NOW, then it would have to be Shaun. Sing made it clear (and I agree) that we simply must see Alex in true game situations and pressure. So we have to wait a while before that can happen. I think it's vastly more important to wait and pick the right starter. It's more important than taking more 1st string snaps. Again, if Hill is everything some advertise him to be? He will do fine regardless if he gets the starting nod later.

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by swim4speed:
We all know that Alex Smith's best season was in 2006 with Norv Turner. That season he threw 16 TD's, but also 16 interceptions. That is not good. With more attempts, he would have thrown over 20 interceptions. His completion % was 58. That is not good. His QB rating was 74, I think. That is mediocre.

His first 3 games of 2007, he played poorly. He still looked very mediocre and in fact looked like he got worse from 2006. They won 2 games DESPITE alex's poor performances.

Statistically speaking he did get worse. I created some trend charts for various QB stats and in all categories that I looked at, Alex started regressing or wearing down over the second 1/2 of 2006. Unfortunately this trend continued into the beginning of 2007 (before the injury).

Statistically speaking, the whole offense got worse.

-9fA

Not true...

Gore's rushing yards per game and yards per attempt shows an improving trend as the 2006 season went along.

I thought we were discussing this downward trend going into early 2007. If so, it's important to remember something. Gore has multiple surgeries (shoulders/ankles) going into 2007 training camp, and then sustained a hand injury in TC. He came into 2007 this way, and between this and Hostler, he struggled, as did the receivers and their 20% drop ratio. I give a fair amount of credit to Alex for helping us get to 2-1 before injury considering these problems. He may not have lit up the stat sheet, but he was a big part of that 2-1 record.

Anyway, to your other post, WHEN do you want a starter named exactly? I applaud your outward willingness to accept whichever QB is named. That said, if a QB must be named NOW, then it would have to be Shaun. Sing made it clear (and I agree) that we simply must see Alex in true game situations and pressure. So we have to wait a while before that can happen. I think it's vastly more important to wait and pick the right starter. It's more important than taking more 1st string snaps. Again, if Hill is everything some advertise him to be? He will do fine regardless if he gets the starting nod later.

You're right, Frank didn't do well at the beginning of 07. And if you factor that into the stats then yes he too had a downward trend. I was responding to the 06 season where all of Alex's starts were trending down but Franks stats were trending up.

As for having a starter named. I think it should be before TC opens. This way we have a guy that the 1's can practice with and start to jell. This decision isn't only for the QB it's for the entire O. Anybody that's watched these QB's will tell you that they have a different release and the velocity is different. These two change the timing of plays significantly.The way it's going now, the entire O needs to practice at 2 different QB speeds; which IMO means that they will not be completely in sync when the season starts.

If through TC the #1 guy struggles or the #2 guy is looking better then that's when you look at changing things up IMO.

Originally posted by oldman9er:

I thought we were discussing this downward trend going into early 2007. If so, it's important to remember something. Gore has multiple surgeries (shoulders/ankles) going into 2007 training camp, and then sustained a hand injury in TC. He came into 2007 this way, and between this and Hostler, he struggled, as did the receivers and their 20% drop ratio. I give a fair amount of credit to Alex for helping us get to 2-1 before injury considering these problems. He may not have lit up the stat sheet, but he was a big part of that 2-1 record.

Anyway, to your other post, WHEN do you want a starter named exactly? I applaud your outward willingness to accept whichever QB is named. That said, if a QB must be named NOW, then it would have to be Shaun. Sing made it clear (and I agree) that we simply must see Alex in true game situations and pressure. So we have to wait a while before that can happen. I think it's vastly more important to wait and pick the right starter. It's more important than taking more 1st string snaps. Again, if Hill is everything some advertise him to be? He will do fine regardless if he gets the starting nod later.

I just don't get how others can label Coach Singletary as incompetent for waiting to see Alex on the field in an actual game. If Smith already made enough of an impression at minis and OTAs, then Coach has to see if Smith's improvement can translate to game days.

The only way to do that is to see him play...um, maybe the first two preseason games. No, but Coach is a failure for not naming one of them a starter yet which would be Hill as of now.

I back Coach's decision to wait until the third game to name his starter which makes sense since the third game's 1st half will be played by the starting group.

IMO, I believe Smith will overtake Hill by the first game. I believe Smith will start against Denver and Hill against Oakland. That game against Denver will really test Alex as he goes against his former HC...mind games, can he deal with them and still lead his team?

Again, I have no preference except I want the best QB on the field for us period. If that means we wait until the third game to find out, we wait until the third game to find out.

Originally posted by ninertico:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

I thought we were discussing this downward trend going into early 2007. If so, it's important to remember something. Gore has multiple surgeries (shoulders/ankles) going into 2007 training camp, and then sustained a hand injury in TC. He came into 2007 this way, and between this and Hostler, he struggled, as did the receivers and their 20% drop ratio. I give a fair amount of credit to Alex for helping us get to 2-1 before injury considering these problems. He may not have lit up the stat sheet, but he was a big part of that 2-1 record.

Anyway, to your other post, WHEN do you want a starter named exactly? I applaud your outward willingness to accept whichever QB is named. That said, if a QB must be named NOW, then it would have to be Shaun. Sing made it clear (and I agree) that we simply must see Alex in true game situations and pressure. So we have to wait a while before that can happen. I think it's vastly more important to wait and pick the right starter. It's more important than taking more 1st string snaps. Again, if Hill is everything some advertise him to be? He will do fine regardless if he gets the starting nod later.

I just don't get how others can label Coach Singletary as incompetent for waiting to see Alex on the field in an actual game. If Smith already made enough of an impression at minis and OTAs, then Coach has to see if Smith's improvement can translate to game days.

The only way to do that is to see him play...um, maybe the first two preseason games. No, but Coach is a failure for not naming one of them a starter yet which would be Hill as of now.

I back Coach's decision to wait until the third game to name his starter which makes sense since the third game's 1st half will be played by the starting group.

IMO, I believe Smith will overtake Hill by the first game. I believe Smith will start against Denver and Hill against Oakland. That game against Denver will really test Alex as he goes against his former HC...mind games, can he deal with them and still lead his team?

Again, I have no preference except I want the best QB on the field for us period. If that means we wait until the third game to find out, we wait until the third game to find out.

Originally posted by ninertico:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

I thought we were discussing this downward trend going into early 2007. If so, it's important to remember something. Gore has multiple surgeries (shoulders/ankles) going into 2007 training camp, and then sustained a hand injury in TC. He came into 2007 this way, and between this and Hostler, he struggled, as did the receivers and their 20% drop ratio. I give a fair amount of credit to Alex for helping us get to 2-1 before injury considering these problems. He may not have lit up the stat sheet, but he was a big part of that 2-1 record.

Anyway, to your other post, WHEN do you want a starter named exactly? I applaud your outward willingness to accept whichever QB is named. That said, if a QB must be named NOW, then it would have to be Shaun. Sing made it clear (and I agree) that we simply must see Alex in true game situations and pressure. So we have to wait a while before that can happen. I think it's vastly more important to wait and pick the right starter. It's more important than taking more 1st string snaps. Again, if Hill is everything some advertise him to be? He will do fine regardless if he gets the starting nod later.

I just don't get how others can label Coach Singletary as incompetent for waiting to see Alex on the field in an actual game. If Smith already made enough of an impression at minis and OTAs, then Coach has to see if Smith's improvement can translate to game days.

The only way to do that is to see him play...um, maybe the first two preseason games. No, but Coach is a failure for not naming one of them a starter yet which would be Hill as of now.

I back Coach's decision to wait until the third game to name his starter which makes sense since the third game's 1st half will be played by the starting group.

IMO, I believe Smith will overtake Hill by the first game. I believe Smith will start against Denver and Hill against Oakland. That game against Denver will really test Alex as he goes against his former HC...mind games, can he deal with them and still lead his team?

Again, I have no preference except I want the best QB on the field for us period. If that means we wait until the third game to find out, we wait until the third game to find out.

Who's calling coach incompetent or a failure because of this decision? That's just wrong! He clearly has his mind made up on what he thinks is best for this team and He's the head coach, so his decision wins.

Some on here, like myself, may disagree that this is the best approach; however, I wouldn't say that Sing is a failure or incompetent for this decision. As they say, there's more then one way to skin a cat... This is the way that Sing is most comfortable with.

Originally posted by D_Niner:


You're right, Frank didn't do well at the beginning of 07. And if you factor that into the stats then yes he too had a downward trend. I was responding to the 06 season where all of Alex's starts were trending down but Franks stats were trending up.

As for having a starter named. I think it should be before TC opens. This way we have a guy that the 1's can practice with and start to jell. This decision isn't only for the QB it's for the entire O. Anybody that's watched these QB's will tell you that they have a different release and the velocity is different. These two change the timing of plays significantly.The way it's going now, the entire O needs to practice at 2 different QB speeds; which IMO means that they will not be completely in sync when the season starts.

If through TC the #1 guy struggles or the #2 guy is looking better then that's when you look at changing things up IMO.

Hmmm... I don't think they like the idea of giving 1 guy the starting nod, only to yank it away so soon after... nor do I. I really think they are playing this the right way here. The scheme will be easier to absorb... Hill is quick to adapt, and Alex is already familiar with it in the past. They want to give Alex every opportunity to win back the job, and giving the job now helps neither of them as much as making sure they make the right call. That right call can only come later (at least after TC).

As for 2006, I think you may have to look closer at the teams we played and more imortantly, when we played them. That has probably more to do with it.

Gore had big rushing games in the 2nd half of the season against STL (ranked 31st vs rush), Seattle twice (ranked 22nd vs rush), Detroit (ranked 21st vs rush), but then still ran well vs decent rush D's like Chicago, GB, and Denver. Gore definitely had a better 2nd half, one could take a lot of different reasons for that. That's why stats can be so easily twisted in such a way to make whatever point necessary. See, Phily had the 26th ranked D vs the rush, yet stoned Gore to 52 yards while Alex had 293 yards in the air. Stats have purpose, but essentially don't tell the whole story.

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by ninertico:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

I thought we were discussing this downward trend going into early 2007. If so, it's important to remember something. Gore has multiple surgeries (shoulders/ankles) going into 2007 training camp, and then sustained a hand injury in TC. He came into 2007 this way, and between this and Hostler, he struggled, as did the receivers and their 20% drop ratio. I give a fair amount of credit to Alex for helping us get to 2-1 before injury considering these problems. He may not have lit up the stat sheet, but he was a big part of that 2-1 record.

Anyway, to your other post, WHEN do you want a starter named exactly? I applaud your outward willingness to accept whichever QB is named. That said, if a QB must be named NOW, then it would have to be Shaun. Sing made it clear (and I agree) that we simply must see Alex in true game situations and pressure. So we have to wait a while before that can happen. I think it's vastly more important to wait and pick the right starter. It's more important than taking more 1st string snaps. Again, if Hill is everything some advertise him to be? He will do fine regardless if he gets the starting nod later.

I just don't get how others can label Coach Singletary as incompetent for waiting to see Alex on the field in an actual game. If Smith already made enough of an impression at minis and OTAs, then Coach has to see if Smith's improvement can translate to game days.

The only way to do that is to see him play...um, maybe the first two preseason games. No, but Coach is a failure for not naming one of them a starter yet which would be Hill as of now.

I back Coach's decision to wait until the third game to name his starter which makes sense since the third game's 1st half will be played by the starting group.

IMO, I believe Smith will overtake Hill by the first game. I believe Smith will start against Denver and Hill against Oakland. That game against Denver will really test Alex as he goes against his former HC...mind games, can he deal with them and still lead his team?

Again, I have no preference except I want the best QB on the field for us period. If that means we wait until the third game to find out, we wait until the third game to find out.

Who's calling coach incompetent or a failure because of this decision? That's just wrong! He clearly has his mind made up on what he thinks is best for this team and He's the head coach, so his decision wins.

Some on here, like myself, may disagree that this is the best approach; however, I wouldn't say that Sing is a failure or incompetent for this decision. As they say, there's more then one way to skin a cat... This is the way that Sing is most comfortable with.

He was not talking about you, but I have read a post or two on here from others that bash Sing for waiting.

... and I agree with you aplenty, ninertico.

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by ninertico:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

I thought we were discussing this downward trend going into early 2007. If so, it's important to remember something. Gore has multiple surgeries (shoulders/ankles) going into 2007 training camp, and then sustained a hand injury in TC. He came into 2007 this way, and between this and Hostler, he struggled, as did the receivers and their 20% drop ratio. I give a fair amount of credit to Alex for helping us get to 2-1 before injury considering these problems. He may not have lit up the stat sheet, but he was a big part of that 2-1 record.

Anyway, to your other post, WHEN do you want a starter named exactly? I applaud your outward willingness to accept whichever QB is named. That said, if a QB must be named NOW, then it would have to be Shaun. Sing made it clear (and I agree) that we simply must see Alex in true game situations and pressure. So we have to wait a while before that can happen. I think it's vastly more important to wait and pick the right starter. It's more important than taking more 1st string snaps. Again, if Hill is everything some advertise him to be? He will do fine regardless if he gets the starting nod later.

I just don't get how others can label Coach Singletary as incompetent for waiting to see Alex on the field in an actual game. If Smith already made enough of an impression at minis and OTAs, then Coach has to see if Smith's improvement can translate to game days.

The only way to do that is to see him play...um, maybe the first two preseason games. No, but Coach is a failure for not naming one of them a starter yet which would be Hill as of now.

I back Coach's decision to wait until the third game to name his starter which makes sense since the third game's 1st half will be played by the starting group.

IMO, I believe Smith will overtake Hill by the first game. I believe Smith will start against Denver and Hill against Oakland. That game against Denver will really test Alex as he goes against his former HC...mind games, can he deal with them and still lead his team?

Again, I have no preference except I want the best QB on the field for us period. If that means we wait until the third game to find out, we wait until the third game to find out.

Who's calling coach incompetent or a failure because of this decision? That's just wrong! He clearly has his mind made up on what he thinks is best for this team and He's the head coach, so his decision wins.

Some on here, like myself, may disagree that this is the best approach; however, I wouldn't say that Sing is a failure or incompetent for this decision. As they say, there's more then one way to skin a cat... This is the way that Sing is most comfortable with.

Coach Sing doesn't strike me as a person who is "comfortable" in anything. He just never rests or is passive to be the best at something. IMO, being comfortable can mean being complacent and that's how I am defining it here.

Rather, I believe that he's methodical and always active in his decision making process and only wants the best and drives individuals to that goal. Because he has two QBs with one being behind at the beginning of the off-season, he has to treat both as viable resources. Now that Alex has "caught up", we have a legit competition between them...we have two legit resources now instead of just one.

This is the best approach, IMO. I just don't see naming Hill as the starter from the get go would be best...not when you have another viable resource who's talents and abilities exceed your current option. If Alex failed quickly, then it would have been a no-brainer. However, Alex excelled and made it difficult for Coach S to name Hill as the starter.

That is why I think this is the better approach...taking advantage of the competition to drive one over the other while evaluating them.

I do see the other side of the fence, but just don't agree with it. It's all good though because we will get the best QB on the field...period.

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by D_Niner:


You're right, Frank didn't do well at the beginning of 07. And if you factor that into the stats then yes he too had a downward trend. I was responding to the 06 season where all of Alex's starts were trending down but Franks stats were trending up.

As for having a starter named. I think it should be before TC opens. This way we have a guy that the 1's can practice with and start to jell. This decision isn't only for the QB it's for the entire O. Anybody that's watched these QB's will tell you that they have a different release and the velocity is different. These two change the timing of plays significantly.The way it's going now, the entire O needs to practice at 2 different QB speeds; which IMO means that they will not be completely in sync when the season starts.

If through TC the #1 guy struggles or the #2 guy is looking better then that's when you look at changing things up IMO.

Hmmm... I don't think they like the idea of giving 1 guy the starting nod, only to yank it away so soon after... nor do I. I really think they are playing this the right way here. The scheme will be easier to absorb... Hill is quick to adapt, and Alex is already familiar with it in the past. They want to give Alex every opportunity to win back the job, and giving the job now helps neither of them as much as making sure they make the right call. That right call can only come later (at least after TC).

As for 2006, I think you may have to look closer at the teams we played and more imortantly, when we played them. That has probably more to do with it.

Gore had big rushing games in the 2nd half of the season against STL (ranked 31st vs rush), Seattle twice (ranked 22nd vs rush), Detroit (ranked 21st vs rush), but then still ran well vs decent rush D's like Chicago, GB, and Denver. Gore definitely had a better 2nd half, one could take a lot of different reasons for that. That's why stats can be so easily twisted in such a way to make whatever point necessary. See, Phily had the 26th ranked D vs the rush, yet stoned Gore to 52 yards while Alex had 293 yards in the air. Stats have purpose, but essentially don't tell the whole story.

I hear you and cleary this is the way that Sing is going. I'm more concerned with the timing between the QB and the line/receivers/tightends/etc... It's true that this timing will come along in the regular season though.

I guess another way to look at it is if the two QB's are so close with each other in this competition; then it doesn't matter which one we end up going with. We might as well pick one right now and fine tune the O to match his skill set. That way we are clicking on all cylinders when the games really count...

As far as the stats, I'm just stating what the trends are.

If you want to know my opinion, I think the run game will open up the passing game and vice verse. With that said, I would expect that with a balanced team we would see the trend lines increase or decrease for both running and passing at the same time. In 06, we see the run increase but the pass decrease. This tells me that we were more effective in the run game then the pass. Regardless of the reason for the pass problems (line, QB, or Receivers) it is tracked against the QB (completions, yards, yards per attempt QB rate)...

Originally posted by oldman9er:


He was not talking about you, but I have read a post or two on here from others that bash Sing for waiting.

... and I agree with you aplenty, ninertico.

Sometimes I just feel like Coach Singletary will make people believe or else...

Alex Smith will earn the starting job. He's got the work ethic, the speed, the footwork, the arm strength, the mentality and now he has the offensive line and running game to help him find his receivers. I like Hill as well, however Smith's ability is greater than Hill's.

Originally posted by ninermatt:
Alex Smith will earn the starting job. He's got the work ethic, the speed, the footwork, the arm strength, the mentality and now he has the offensive line and running game to help him find his receivers. I like Hill as well, however Smith's ability is greater than Hill's.

you sound so confident this will happen.....

compared to Hill....has Alex proven

work ethic (does Hill have less )

speed (does Hill seem slower ) or should I say does has Alex use his "speed" consistently enough for it to be considered a bonus.

footwork (yeaaah....k)

arm strength (i'll give you this...even though this is that important)

mentality (I don't know what this means as far as QBing)

I don't know....based on 9er games I have watched these past 3-4 years....I believe Hill will beat out Alex and play fine during the regular season

I think Hill is an excellant QB. Before this season based on his play in 07 I thought Hill earned the starting position, however when Alex is healthy and has a good line in front of him he does well. I remember the home gave vs. Arizona in 07 when he brought the team back late and pulled it out. I remember the game vs. Seatle in Seatle in 06 when he was poised and the line gave him time he showed excellant leadership. I think Hill is a good QB and we'd be fine with him, but based on several interviews from people around the league they seem to favor Smith. Put it this way, I was very skeptical of Smith, but when he has time and weapons to throw to he is a good-not great QB. He is also younger than Hill. Plus, I think that the competition and Singletary's attitude will work to his benefit.